Timeline for Incorrect rendering of relative timestamps
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Jun 13, 2013 at 13:08 | answer | added | Cpt. Senkfuss | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 27, 2012 at 10:00 | history | edited | Nick CraverMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 27, 2012 at 8:33 | comment | added | lanzz | It would be much more intuitive to define "yesterday" as "the 24-hour period centered around 24 hours ago" than "24 to 48 hours ago"; now it is like saying it's 5 o'clock when it is 5:59. You can say that yesterday is between 24 and 48 hours ago only if you can count on the actual day boundaries to match that period; in the SO case you can't, so it is better to round than to truncate. | |
| Oct 27, 2012 at 8:30 | comment | added | ben is uǝq backwards | In relative terms it is though. It looks as though the UTC enforcement breaks down in the relative times. Yesterday, somewhere in the world, is always between 24 and 48 hours ago. It looks as though that is what it has been defined as here (or of course it's a bug :-)). | |
| Oct 27, 2012 at 8:27 | comment | added | lanzz | Yes, but that's not what "yesterday" means. If something happened 65 seconds ago, it could be said to be "a minute ago"; if it happened 110 seconds ago, it is much more "two minutes ago" than "a minute ago", even though it is technically less than 120 seconds ago. In this case the "yesterday" misleads me that something happened roughly 24 hours ago, while in fact it is almost 48 hours ago. | |
| Oct 27, 2012 at 8:24 | comment | added | ben is uǝq backwards | Yes, but it is less than 48 hours ago... | |
| Oct 27, 2012 at 8:15 | history | asked | lanzz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |